Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The historical test

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:06:26 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The system needs to guarantee the "possibility" of a Chancellorsville..., but not it's certainty.



Agreed. But I don't think the game is THAT unbalanced at present.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 121
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:13:19 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 122
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:22:18 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)


Really? I've seen the Union AI throw some whopping big armies at me in the base game. I've been pressed both East and West by armies that outnumber me. If the AI were to do a better job of consolidating its Eastern armies, I bet they would, at times, outnumber me by close to 2 to 1.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 123
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:26:38 AM   
kfmiller41


Posts: 1063
Joined: 3/25/2003
From: Saint Marys, Ga
Status: offline 		my biggest single problem with the game as it is now is (IMHO) the massive southern advantage the game seems to have. The union has only a minimal economic advantage and it seems way to easy for Europe to give the south alot of help. Using history as a guide, the south should be outnumbered on the ground and at sea from the outset, they should have better quality and better leadership. The Union used its superior numbers and economy to beat down the south over time. The best chance the south had for victory was the first 3 years and it got harder every year. I just don't think the game reflects that. Another game comes to mind with this situation, War in the Pacific. Japan starts out as strong as she ever gets and it goes downhill from there. They can win if played well (although in the end its just a moral victory). The same situation should be happening here. The south starts out as strong as she will ever be and a good southern player will find a way to keep the north at bay until they give up and Lincoln loses the election. Just my 2 cents.

< Message edited by miller41 -- 1/3/2007 6:37:39 AM >

_____________________________

You have the ability to arouse various emotions in me: please select carefully.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 124
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:05:28 AM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Very reminiscent of comments i have also made re WITP and the similarities of the problem for the underdog.

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to kfmiller41)
Post #: 125
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:00:46 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Does this include cutting the Mississippi? I see a LOT of RED on that map.


sorry, I do not follow this question, the question asked was could the player (Union) or I, do 3 things that the Union had done in real life, I said that the one game I played as the Union during testings I had done 2 of the 3, and never went for the 3rd one, as my goal then was to take out the ANV

then it was brought up that since I didn't take NO, it was not doable, I just showing that it is doable in the right timeline

I do not know if I would want to do it, in a "real" game but it is a heck of a target if it works

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 126
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:11:25 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.


Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected



I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.


well, as it was a test game, and not a game game, I didn't care what happened in any other area, so any battle fought was QC

which remember, at times, I set up games to just see what I can test, if something is said or what not, I will see if I can that up to see what is being talked about, not every game or test I do, is a pureblown HW combat fest (when I play for fun, it is)

so, that was a test game to see if I could do it, but if I could do it there, I could do it in one of my real games

that make sense ?



_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 127
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:22:17 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline


quote:

I agree that the current set up probably favors the South too heavily and probably would endorse most of the points spruce made. But I do resist the notion that the answer lies wholly, or even mostly, in the numbers. Indeed, simply modeling the ledgers is the easy way out. Far better, I think, to build a game that captures the fog of uncertainty that bedeviled our ancestors, within the bounds of historical plausibility.


I am not so sure if the Bais that is being complained about is really "there" to the extent that most people think it is, I think most people are reading what can be done, and reading what is here and there and so "think" it is bais

during the middle of testing, I ran a game from the Union for the first time, and crushed the south and won the game in 62, most of my statments and wishes were for things to make the Union stronger, now there was concern that if I could crush the CSA that easily, the south needed more help then the Union did, then it was decided that maybe it was just me, so the south was left alone

I still got to say, during Alpha and Beta, there was no Fanboyism from the designers or from the testers

_____________________________


(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 128
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:29:34 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I would say that it is in the sense that it's almost impossible for the Union to field the massive force Hooker did opposed to Lee (and still have the rest of the Armies in action that they did at the time.)


I must of worked too HARD last night, I am not following most of these lines of thought at all this morning

Why ? you may not be able to build a lot of Cav early in the game, but you can build a lot of Inf and Arty (and seige and gunboats, which are more importent)



_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 129
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:39:52 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.


Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected



I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.


well, as it was a test game, and not a game game, I didn't care what happened in any other area, so any battle fought was QC. OK..., that tells me something. You were just playing this scenario to see if N.O. could be captured---and not worrying about what was happening elsewhere.

And remember, at times, I set up games to just see what I can test, if something is said or what not, I will see if I can that up to see what is being talked about, not every game or test I do, is a pureblown HW combat fest (when I play for fun, it is). Certainly understandable considering the number of questions on which your opinion is solicited

So this was a test game to see if I could do it, but if I could do it there, I could do it in one of my real games. This was where my question began. You took N.O....., but what did the rest of your situation look like? Spring of 1862 was a really busy time for the Union IRL. Farragut taking New Orleans (with Butler's occupation force following), Pope siezing the Mississippi Forts and Memphis, Grant and Foote opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at Henry and Donaldson while Buell marched his army on Nashville through Kentucky. That's over 150,000 men involved in some active operation in the West. And in the East between Burnside on the Carolina Coast and Fremont in the Allegheny's, you also have Banks in the Valley, Wool at Fortress Monroe, and "Little Mac's" massive Army of the Potomac around Washington----over 200,000 men ready to go into "action". My question is "Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?
that make sense ?




(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 130
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 3:54:21 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		to be honest no

one thing I didn't want to do, was to do something that would be seen as drawing off troops that could of helped/countered the landing at NO

the goal of the test was to see if I could make a landing and if I could take out the fort and city with in the time line requested

I would also say, that the AoP was stronger then I normally leave it, I tend to shift troops out of the area in normal games

(one bad part about posting that test, now in any PBEM game, I do not think the Union is ever going to get away with it, as the CSA player will now make sure if nothing else, that fort is upgraded a little bit)




_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 131
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 4:12:27 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no




Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 132
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 4:46:42 PM   
rook749


Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Agreed. But I don't think the game is THAT unbalanced at present.



For the most part I agree with you but there are some areas that are very unbalanced. My top three would be the:

1) Navy/Blockade. The North simply can't afford to field the size of the navy needed to blockade the South. Also the starting size of CSA Navy in the July setup should be 0 Fleets and ships. The Union should also start with at least some of its ships armed in the July Setup (the Union fleet size near as I can tell is correct)

2) The ability to field the correct army sizes with Divisions commanders. Also as the size of armies goes up I have some concerns that the only weapon either side will be able to use will be the Mini Riffle but to limits on the number of Springfield’s and improved Springfield’s.

3) Generals needs some work. The arrival dates are way off on some of the generals, this tends to hurt the Union more than the CSA as the CSA has great generals at start. Also Generals never seem to die in QB which is what people who use PBEM use, I’ve lost two generals in nine games so far in QB).

Overall, I think the game I great.

Rook

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 133
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:00:52 PM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline 		And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh

(in reply to rook749)
Post #: 134
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:07:06 PM   
rook749


Posts: 1105
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh



I *think* these units in a fort can trace supply to sea and then be in supply. There is a starting fort for the Union in FL where their is a similar situation at the start of the July Setup.

This still doesn’t solve the problem that you can't take control of the province.

Rook

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 135
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:18:06 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749

For the most part I agree with you but there are some areas that are very unbalanced. My top three would be the:

1) Navy/Blockade. The North simply can't afford to field the size of the navy needed to blockade the South. Also the starting size of CSA Navy in the July setup should be 0 Fleets and ships. The Union should also start with at least some of its ships armed in the July Setup (the Union fleet size near as I can tell is correct)

2) The ability to field the correct army sizes with Divisions commanders. Also as the size of armies goes up I have some concerns that the only weapon either side will be able to use will be the Mini Riffle but to limits on the number of Springfield’s and improved Springfield’s.

3) Generals needs some work. The arrival dates are way off on some of the generals, this tends to hurt the Union more than the CSA as the CSA has great generals at start. Also Generals never seem to die in QB which is what people who use PBEM use, I’ve lost two generals in nine games so far in QB).

Overall, I think the game I great.

Rook



I'd add a number 4 here. The inability to build the historical armies both sides used. By Antietam both armies should have at least 1 artillery unit attached to each division and large artillery reserves attached to their corps and armies. The Union should have mostly the better pieces the south a more mixed bag of pieces. But both sides fielded large numbers of artillery units, something which is impossible to do given how the economy works now.

Sure you can dedicate 100% of your production to building artillery and get a few dozen units (far fewer than historical), but then you’ll be critically short in other areas.

The game just can’t be called an historical recreation of the civil war. Too many things in it have nothing to do with history and everything to do with balancing a strategy title. I think of it more as a strategy game using a civil war theme. Fun to play, but not even close to an historical recreation of the actual war.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/3/2007 5:30:14 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to rook749)
Post #: 136
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:22:08 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no




Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.


and again, Why ? I have done all 3 of the things asked, and none of them used the same troops, it is not like the troops used to take NO would of been the troops used to take Nashville ?

(I am glad no one is asking when I took out the ANV)


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 137
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:27:49 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And, in somewhat of an "injury to Insult" situation, if you take New Orleans early , you can't really hold onto it that long, as it doesn't border another province the Union owns, it's out of supply, and will wither away and die.

Unless of course I missed something somewheres, which is entirel possible.

Thresh



the city will provide the supply needed for the troops with in the city, you will still own the City, what it makes and what not (not troops) will be yours, you not be able to use that city as a spring board into the underbelly of the south, the loss of NO will be a major blow to the south, just in itself

_____________________________


(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 138
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:19:14 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest no




Fair enough. It seems with luck and planning New Orleans CAN fall at approximately the right time. That's good. It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time. Not so good. But it helps to define the problem, and what might be needed to correct it overall..., which is progress.



and again, Why ? I have done all 3 of the things asked, and none of them used the same troops, it is not like the troops used to take NO would of been the troops used to take Nashville ?
(I am glad no one is asking when I took out the ANV)




WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 139
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:43:27 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Jim,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The game just can’t be called an historical recreation of the civil war. Too many things in it have nothing to do with history and everything to do with balancing a strategy title. I think of it more as a strategy game using a civil war theme. Fun to play, but not even close to an historical recreation of the actual war.


Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 140
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 6:45:50 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."


Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union.

Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 141
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:32:21 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Raise a Navy, Army with artillery and Cavalry that approximates the size of the Combat units in the EAST and WEST. Also move on NO and down the Mississippi from the North. All this by August 1862.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 142
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:33:10 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


...It also seems that the system CANNOT create the historical situation existing at that time...


You are jumping to conclusions. Just becasue Hard Sarge didn't duplicate the historical situation in one try against the AI does not mean the system cannot do so. In order to try to prove your assertion that the system cannot you should play several PBEM games. Both of you must be willing to faithfully follow the historical course of the war. Even then, the luck of the dice will almost certainly throw you far off the historical track. And even if after several tries you didn't recreate the situation does not mean you cannot.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 143
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:35:20 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Another note, the limits set on how many of one type of weapon the North can have is ridiculous. Again it is DESIGNED to prevent any reasonable representation of what actually exsisted.
Even if one increases the Population and allows for larger troops strengths one quickly runs into having to pay HUGE sums of money and weapons to arm said troops. You cant honestly expect me to believe most of the Union army was armed with blunderbusses can you?

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 144
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:43:55 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."


Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union.

Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.

Regards,

- Erik


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

Of course, that is much hard to test.

But the point I am making is that testing balance against the computer is kind of pointless - you are just testing your ability not to be an idiot. Anyone with some basic intelligence should be able to stomp the computer every time.

I have no doubt Sarge can do all kinds of amazing things. That doesn't tell us anything about the balance of the game.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 145
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:44:53 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths.

Regards,

- Erik



I tried a game as the Union at +3 power and richer economy (the south was at -1 power). My goal was to outfit my entire starting army with Springfield’s or better and build a couple divisions of cavalry. I then wanted to give each division at least 1 artillery unit.

By late 1863 I had a grand total of 6 artillery units built and my army still had some improvised weapons in it and about half had only mini rifles. I also had only about 1 divisions worth of cavalry built by then. By this point I had also managed to only build 2 corps HQ’s as well.

Now I’m sure had I forgone things like diplomacy spending, economic growth and research I could have done better. But I was trying to play the game intelligently and simply could not afford to build an historical force. Not even close to the one fielded in mid 1862 by the Union and the game was more than half over.

Jim




_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 146
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:53:45 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

But the point I am making is that testing balance against the computer is kind of pointless...


Agreed but not because of your opinion that the AI is stupid. I neither expect nor want the AI to play a strictly historical game. It should have a lot of variability in it's strategic play to make the game replayable. So the likelihood of getting to a certain point in the game and being able to say "yup that is what really happened" should be unlikely.

If this is truly a test of wheter the game can simulate the war then it needs to be done with PBEM by two people who are cooperating to play a historical game. Any good player can skew the results if he knows exaclty what the other person is trying to accomplish and is actively working to prevent that.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 147
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:54:10 PM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline 		OK, call me crazy here if you must, but shouldn't the "Neutral" settings be the ones that best recreate the historical economic situation for both sides?

If you're telling me I have to set the Union at +3 and the CSA at -3 to get the right "historical" feel, why is the game not automatically defaulted to that?

Thresh

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 148
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 7:55:21 PM   
kafka

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 6/11/2004
Status: offline 		hmm... I thought I've purchased a game (which btw I enjoy as it is) and not just a tool to feed the illusion of a perpetual history recreation

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 149
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:01:23 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

OK, call me crazy here if you must, but shouldn't the "Neutral" settings be the ones that best recreate the historical economic situation for both sides?

If you're telling me I have to set the Union at +3 and the CSA at -3 to get the right "historical" feel, why is the game not automatically defaulted to that?

Thresh



It was a game design decision. The designers chose to build a balanced strategy game instead of an historical wargame. The Union had a 9-1 advantage in both money and industry over the south. They also had about a 4-1 advantage in manpower.

Had the designers approached the game with these basic facts as their building blocks, we’d have a more accurate wargame today since they’d have taken into account all the problems such a huge advantage creates in a game and designed things to make it challenging for both sides.

As it is, in my above post where I had tweaked the settings so high, I could have steamrolled the south anytime I wished since the game is designed to be a balanced test and any weight given to one side or the other simply skews game balance.

But I wanted to see if I could build an historical army so I refrained from crushing the south.

Jim



_____________________________


(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906